The take: “Colonialism brought civilization, infrastructure, and Christianity to Africa. Africa would be nothing without it.”
Who said it: Cecil Rhodes, various European historians, and the occasional modern politician who should have retired from public life years ago (or been retired by voters, same thing).
Why it is wrong: This take assumes Africa had no civilization before the Europeans arrived. It ignores the kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Axum, Great Zimbabwe, and Kongo. It ignores the universities of Timbuktu (yes, universities, plural, in the 13th century). It ignores the legal systems, trade networks, and cultural achievements that existed for centuries before a single European set foot on the continent. But sure, tell me more about how they needed “civilizing.”
The infrastructure argument: colonies built railroads and ports to extract resources, not to develop the continent. The railroads went from mines to ports, not between African cities. They were designed to get resources out, not to connect people. It is like congratulating a burglar for installing a ladder in your window.
The economic argument: Colonial powers extracted an estimated trillions of dollars worth of resources from Africa. Belgium extracted rubber from the Congo with a death toll of millions (King Leopold II was basically a genocidal CEO). France extracted taxes from its colonies well into the 2000s (the Franc CFA system). Britain drew borders that divided ethnic groups and created conflicts that persist today.
Colonialism was not a development project. It was a looting operation with good PR. The PR just happened to last 200 years.
Book recommendation: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney.
Coming soon: “The Iraq War Was a Good Idea”